Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2013 7TH SRAVANA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 3155 of 2013 () --------------------------- CC 897/2012 of J.M.F.C.-I, ALUVA ----------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5.------------------------------- 1. JYOTHISHLAL, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.VISWAMBHARAN, KIZHAKOOT HOUSE NEAR GOVT. HIGHER SECONARY SCHOOL, VAZHAKKULAM KARA SOUTH VAZHAKKULAM VILLAGE.
2. SHAHABAS, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.HAMEED, KARAYIKOODATH HOUSE, MULLUPADY BHAGAM VELIYATHUNADU KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE.
3. FIROS KHAN, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.AZEEZ, MUTHAYIL VEEDU, NAD BHAGAM NOCHIMA KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE.
4. MUHAMMED NAIZAL, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, ARATTIL HOUSE, KONDOTTY BHAGAM CHOVARA KARA, CHOVARA VILLAGE.
5. SUHAIL, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.HUSSAIN, CHINGATHIL VEETTIL, OPP.PUSHPANAGAR EDATHALA KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE.
6. HARIS, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.HASSAN, IYATHU HOUSE, KAIPPADAMUGHAL BHAGAM KALAMASSERY KARA, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE.
7. JAHANGEER, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.JAFFIR, KAIPPADAMUGHAL BHAGAM, NEAR MUSLIM CHURCH, ELOOKARA KARA, KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE.
8. RIFAD, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED RAFEEQ, EDASSERY HOUSE, NEAR JUMA MASJID KUNNATHERI KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE.
9. SIDDIQUE @ BINU, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.KASIM, MEENATHAIKKAL VEETTIL, AL-AMIN NAGAR NOCHIMA KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE. VK Crl.MC.No. 3155 of 2013 () --------------------------- 10. JAYADEVAN, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.SASIKALA KUMAR, INDUKALA HOUSE, NEAR SCHOOL VAZHAKKULAM KARA, SOTH VAZHAKKULAM VILLAGE.
11. ANAS, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.ALI, PLAVIDA HOUSE, NEAR JUMA MASJID CHOORNIKKARA KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE.
12. SUHAIL, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.SULAIMAN, THOPPIL HOUSE, VATTEKKUNNAM BHAGAM EDAPPALLY KARA, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE.
13. SAHAD, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.JALEEL, PURAKKULAM HOUSE, DESEEYAMUKKU BHAGAM THRIKKAKARA KARA, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE.
14. MUHAMMAD SAHAL, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.AMEER, AALAMULLATHIL HOUSE, NEAR AL-AMEEN COLLEGE NOCHIMA KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE.
15. SHIHAS, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.SUBAIR, MAMBAYIL HOUSE, FERRY JUNCTION ELOOKARA KARA, KADUNGALLUR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.JAISON JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM REPRESENTIGN SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION.
2. ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 5 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUMUHAMMED, MUNDETH HOUSE, MURIKKAPADAM BHAGAM THAIKKATTUKARA KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, PRINCIPAL AL-AMEEN COLLEGE, EDATHALA, ALUVA PIN 68.564. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA R2 BY SRI.P.S.APPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK Crl.MC.No. 3155 of 2013 () --------------------------- APPENDIX --------- PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- ANNEXURE A1. COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET/FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.897 OF 201.ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 1 ALUVA. ANNEXURE A2. AFFIDAVIT FILED RESPONDENT NO.2. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK V.K.MOHANAN, J.
---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3155 of 2013 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2013 ORDER
The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), at the instance of the petitioners, who are accused in C.C.No. 897 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.1979 of 2012 of Aluva Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 427, r/w 149 of I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure-AI charge sheet and all further proceedings in C.C.No. 897 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva as the matter is settled out of court.
2. The allegation in the above case is that on 27.7.2012 at 10.30 a.m. the accused herein formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and broken and damaged the window glasses, plastic and steel chairs, desks, benches, flex boards, name board of the Principal, switch boards, switches, NCC Boards, electric wires, aqua guard water purifier of the Al-Ameen College at Edathala and sustained a damage to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and thereby all the petitioners/accused committed the aforesaid offences and thus Crl.M.C.No.3155 o”
2. according to the prosecution, the petitioners are committed the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 427 r/w 149 of IPC. Now the case of the petitioners is that the matter is settled out of court. The petitioners are students and the de facto complainant is the principal of the college in which the petitioners are studying. Annexure-A2 is the affidavit sworn into by the de facto complainant who, is the 2nd respondent.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings.
5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, who on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent, submitted that the above respondent, who is the de facto complainant does not intend to proceed any further against the Crl.M.C.No.3155 o”
3. petitioners and he has no grievance against them.
6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the respective counsel. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only under Section 143, 147, 427 r/w 149 of IPC which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the 2nd respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners/accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex Court Crl.M.C.No.3155 o”
4. reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012(4) KLT 10.(SC)], in which case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.. It is further held as follows:- "......... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in Crl.M.C.No.3155 o”
5. its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim........" According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum laid in the above decision is applicable in the present case. Thus, I am of the view that as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote and encourage such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there would not have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. Crl.M.C.No.3155 o”
6. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure - AI charge sheet and all further proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.897 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva. V.K.MOHANAN Judge mns/